On Wednesday while President Barack Hussein Obama was preparing for his speech on drone death strikes, his administration acknowledged details on the strikes for the first time publicly.

I. Administration Admits It Killed Americans With Drone Strikes

In his speech today, President Obama preached a message of optimism, suggesting that the "war on terror" might one day be over via "quiet determination; that strength of character and bond of fellowship; that refutation of fear – that is both our sword and our shield."

But their were also grim overtones. Just hours before, on Wednesday, administration took a begrudging step forward, confirming -- for the first time -- that four American citizens had been killed in the Middle East with (warrantless) drone death strikes during President Obama's two terms. Three of the four dead Americans were "inadvertent" casualties of strikes on other targets -- only one (Anwar al-Awlaki) was intended to be killed.

The administration in its acknowledgement defended the legality of the killings, arguing the strikes met the standard set forth in Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s letter [PDF] to Congress, in which he wrote that an American terrorist must be classified as "a continuing, imminent threat to Americans", and be in a place where capture is not a feasible possibility. It says that the President's speech "will discuss why the use of drone strikes is necessary, legal and just, while addressing the various issues raised by our use of targeted action."

President Obama promises to be "transparent" about drone death strikes on American citizens.
[Image Source: AP]

While the President is standing firm on killing Americans who turn to "terrorism", he's also reportedly extending new protections for foreign terrorists. In classified policy guidance he reportedly signed this week, the President rules that strikes on foreigners must meet the same criteria as those on Americans. The policy is expected to reduce strikes in regions like Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia -- and the civilian casualties that have accompanied such strikes.

President Obama also wants to transfer the drone strikes program to military control. To date most of the death strikes have been the handiwork of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.

Some feel the President shouldn't have the power to order the warrantless killings of Americans on U.S. soil. [Image Source: Drone Wars UK]

In his speech, the President somewhat dodged the question of warrantless drone death strikes on Americans on U.S. soil, a particular controversial part of the policy AG Holder defended. To date no American is known to have been killed in such a strike, but AG Holder argued it would be legal in some extreme circumstances.

In his speech President Obama seems to suggest strikes on U.S. soil are off-limits, stating:

For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen – with a drone, or a shotgun – without due process. Nor should any President deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.

But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America – and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens; and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot – his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team.

However, the President's wording does not conclusively state that his policy is to never use drone strikes on U.S. soil -- just that he thinks it's a bad idea.

II. Lawsuits, Criticism Heats Up

Critics say the President's defense of drone killings is unacceptable. Zeke Johnson of Amnesty International told The New York Times, "The Obama administration continues to claim authority to kill virtually anyone anywhere in the world under the ‘global battlefield’ legal theory and a radical redefinition of the concept of imminence. President Obama should reject these concepts in his speech tomorrow and commit to upholding human rights, not just in word but in deed."

The U.S. does pay "grief payments" of a few thousand dollars to civilian victims of drone strikes, but humanitarian groups say that is not acceptable. The Pakistani judicial system has a current effort to propose UN war crimes charges against the U.S. for the civilian casualties.

The President acknowledges civilian deaths, but called them a necessary evil in his speech. He comments:

This last point is critical, because much of the criticism about drone strikes – at home and abroad – understandably centers on reports of civilian casualties. There is a wide gap between U.S. assessments of such casualties, and non-governmental reports. Nevertheless, it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in all wars. For the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred through conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But as Commander-in-Chief, I must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives. To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties – not just in our cities at home and facilities abroad, but also in the very places –like Sana’a and Kabul and Mogadishu – where terrorists seek a foothold. Let us remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes.

The decision to acknowledge drone death strikes on U.S. citizens, also allows legal challenges to the policy to move ahead. The U.S. Department of Justice on Wednesday dropped an effort to throw out a case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California, which claimed that the death strikes on the four Americans violated due process. The DOJ had been arguing that the drone strikes were not confirmed and thus could not be the subject of a lawsuit, but Wednesday's admission scuttled that argument.

III. Closing Guantánamo Bay's Prison

In his speech President Obama is also expected to discuss a final path towards closing the prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. During his 2007 campaign, the President promised to close that prison, a controversial legacy of President George W. Bush's administration. But once elected, President Obama moved sluggishly. Today Guantánamo Bay is still in operation and drawing criticism, albeit with less inmates than in 2008.

The Justice Department’s investigation of national security leaks offers a recent example of the challenges involved in striking the right balance between our security and our open society. As Commander-in Chief, I believe we must keep information secret that protects our operations and our people in the field. To do so, we must enforce consequences for those who break the law and breach their commitment to protect classified information. But a free press is also essential for our democracy. I am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable.

Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law. That is why I have called on Congress to pass a media shield law to guard against government over-reach. I have raised these issues with the Attorney General, who shares my concern. So he has agreed to review existing Department of Justice guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters, and will convene a group of media organizations to hear their concerns as part of that review. And I have directed the Attorney General to report back to me by July 12th.

President Obama's Justice Department stands accused of spying on AP offices and staffers.

The 4 Americans killed is the least of the US problem with drones, even do that gets a lot of attention in the US maybe.

Its shame that the US is only now finding out that drone attacks are backfiring, on how the world sees the US.

Was there no one in the hole administration that was standing up, and saying, we have to stop doing this?

After the bombing of the WTC, the US had a hole lot of goodwill in the world, even among moslims, and they treated and used all that good will up, and make the most of the world even hate the US even more.

I had suds high hopes for Obama, that he maybe would reach out with a olive branch, instead he was just as bad as Bush, in feeling what was happening in the world.

I say this not to Troll, but from the outside looking in, the US way to self centered, and not take responsibility for what they done in the past.

As for the moslim guy in the streets that has noting, Guantanamo bay and the indiscriminate drone attacks are symbols that show the US is evil and not even following its own laws, and make it easy to make anti western propaganda.

Seems to me that they are testing people's tolerant and keep pushing the boundaries. Not that they just find out these drone attacks are backfiring. They want to kill a few US citizen "terrorists" and release the information to see people's reaction.

If general public is okay with it, then they will start to kill a lot more. If general public is not happy, they will kill a few here and there in secret or in public until people are used to it.

Remember the massive anti war protest during the Vietnam War & Korean War? Has the US stop going to war since then? Are there any massive anti war protest now?

Clearly, you did not realize there are planes now. It's also obvious there's millions of Moslems here also.

You can say the US is safer from conventional warfare because of the oceans the separated us.

quote: During a time of war when you are trying to take out the leadership then drone attack is fine. Otherwise, I'm not sure if doing it on terrorists outside of war.

What is your definition of war? because it's clear they've already taken it to us for decades. It's unfortunate that news of catching potential terrorists are not pushed by the media as opposed to news about a drone attack.

It's hard for any of us to judge whether each drone strike is right sitting here behind a computer reading a news article from an obvious bias author. I'm telling you from my actual experience from seeing it myself in the past. It takes substantial evidence and intel before any general/director will call a strike. Regardless if it is an order from HQ, leaders are expected to have moral judgement instead of blindly following orders. You also wouldn't believe how much visual information we get during the operation. The drone strike is a small part of the operation. We usually have at least multiple teams on the ground to confirm target, activity, and civilians nearby. It is usually monitored for days to weeks before a drone strike is approved to avoid collateral damage. There's also back up plans to ensure mission success. At any time, the mission can be called off by an operator on the ground that will supercede command authority. It's not like the movies guys.

I said the level of difficulty, I didn't say it was impossible. It is much more difficult to get to the US undetected than Europe. In Europe you can actually sail around the coast and come into the country undetected.

quote: It's also obvious there's millions of Moslems here also.

Muslim is the correct spelling. Yes, My wife is a Muslim also, so yeah there are Muslims here, but that doesn't make them terrorists or even part of the radical movement.

quote: because it's clear they've already taken it to us for decades.

Who would be considered "they"? Is that all Muslims? Decades? Do you mean since the Gulf War in 1990 which was mandated by the UN or the attack on the World Trade Center on 2001?

The reality is that every current conflict is based on previous American intervention. Each drone strike, even if successfully eliminating the target, just produces more radical Muslims. Why are we hell bent on being the peace keepers of the world especially in disputes that are centuries old?

quote: I said the level of difficulty, I didn't say it was impossible. It is much more difficult to get to the US undetected than Europe. In Europe you can actually sail around the coast and come into the country undetected.

When millions have made it here, the significance of that extra difficulty is insignificant.

quote: Muslim is the correct spelling. Yes, My wife is a Muslim also, so yeah there are Muslims here, but that doesn't make them terrorists or even part of the radical movement.

Yes, and so is moslem. So your wife is moslem and you don't even know the word moslem is correct? lol that's just ignorance.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/MoslemI never said all moslems are part of the radical movement. But certainly, most global terrorist activities are by them.

quote: Who would be considered "they"? Is that all Muslims? Decades? Do you mean since the Gulf War in 1990 which was mandated by the UN or the attack on the World Trade Center on 2001?

Actually it started before that. The WTC in 2001 is a successful terrorist attack. There has actually been several other attempts to blow it up before that. I'll let you research that info since you are ignorant to actual events.

quote: The reality is that every current conflict is based on previous American intervention. Each drone strike, even if successfully eliminating the target, just produces more radical Muslims. Why are we hell bent on being the peace keepers of the world especially in disputes that are centuries old?

Not true. The middle east has been hot since well...too long. Did you somehow forgot the crusades and all other conflict besides post WW2?WW1 was not caused by the US. WW2 is caused by the allies(mostly uk and france) demanding too much reparation.If we want to trace back, everything was caused by events before the US even existed. The US has only been globally active post WW2.

quote: A Muslim in Arabic means "one who gives himself to God," and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means "one who is evil and unjust" when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z.

By Arabic definition the difference is determined by your level of respect for that religion. Hence the reason why Muslim is the preferred use and the correct spelling.

According to the english dictionary, they are both the same. Since I speak english, i will go with the dictionary. I'm not trying to be ignorant. I just don't care what a word mean to other people as it means different things to different people. Apparently, some Muslims/moslems/mozlems think killing people was way to sit next to Allah and enjoy 75 virgins.My roommate is moslem/muslim he can 2 shiz less because he doesn't expect me to be overly sensitive about every little detail over his religion.

quote: Each drone strike, even if successfully eliminating the target, just produces more radical Muslims.

Okay I keep hearing how terrorism is all Americas fault. Even though it was employed thousands of years ago, but I digress.

So when a suicide bomber blows up 40+ people in Yemen or Pakistan and kills his own people: Not Americans, not soldiers, but just random local citizens....what, they still get to claim that's because of some U.S involvement somewhere?

And what about the families of those killed and the survivors missing limbs and being scarred for life, do they just go "Oh well, it was the Great Satan's fault somehow"?

I mean seriously, the logic that we've caused global Islamic terrorism or that it's all just a response to "Imperialist" policies of the West needs to be seriously questioned. When I see someone blow up their own people in some cafe or school crossing, I can't logically see how that's directed at America. Or that it's a reasonable response to ANYTHING!

There have been thousands of successful terrorist attacks since 9-11, and the majority of them haven't even been directed at American people or assets. They're murdering their own people mostly! Can someone make sense to me that this is the result of us "producing radical Muslims"? People who randomly kill others, even in countries that have NOTHING to do with the War on Terror, is the result of us making terrorists?

Neither of these things are true, a lot of other nations fight wars overseas. The UK, France, Canada, Australia and many other countries are involved in overseas conflicts. Also, the incidence of terrorism is lower or similar in many other countries on earth.

Canada for example only shares a border with the US so they only need to worry about illegal US immigrants (which is not a big problem) and our excellent trading relationship with the US. Domestic terrorism is hardly an issue, in fact most of Canada's anti-terrorism budget is spent foiling plots to terrorize the US.

Canada has barely a military, hardly a global presence, and got more problems with bear attacks than international conflicts. They honestly depend on the US for military protection.

The US is the wealthiest country in the world by far. It is involved in nearly every conflict, fund most of the UN, has directly targeted Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks. We're pretty much the target for terrorism. We are everything these terrorists are against especially when we created the whole Israel conflict after WW2.

If you compare us to the UK, we're doing vastly better.

We were stupid to think we could right wrongs in the past. But the effects of those decisions are here now and we have to deal with it.

Mass shootings like newtown and bombings like boston DO NOT HAPPEN in the largest parts of europe. If we look over the past 2 decades:

- northern ireland was a problem, an war for independance that has since stopped.- england has only had terrorist attacks after they joined the US in going to the middle east.- the only thing even remotely like a terrorist attack in holland was the shooting of a politician a decade ago, which was unrelated to the middle east. No bombings have happened here, ever.- france has had a couple of riots due to social unrest but no actual terrorist attacks- no terrorist attacks in germany and only 1 mass shooting that i can remember being in the news in 2 decades.- belgium, no terrorist attacks- spain has only had middle eastern terrorist attacks since the invasion of iraq and afgahnistan, anything other was related to a local splinter group fighting for "independance".-switserland... hah.- austria, nothing.- poland, nothing- norway, nothing- denmark, nothing

etc etc. If you go to south-eastern europe things become more dodgy around former yugoslavia but the north is about as safe as can be. And the US? Just a quick google search:

"There were a total of 207 terrorist attacks in the US between 2001 and 2011. They went down from a high of 40 in 2001 to nine in 2011."

I hope you realise the US is the only country living in constant fear. Very much so because of your policy to fight in other people's nations. if 40 years of meddling in the middle east lead to iraq and 9/11, just imagine what iraq and afgahnistan + the arab spring are going to lead to....

Selective memory at work here...I lived in Europe in the 80's and remember quite well the terrorism in England, Ireland, Germany, Italy, etc. I helped launch the retaliatory raid on Libya in 1986 in response to terrorism.As for why others do not have terrorist incidents, the US, as the world leader (whether you like it or not) takes the brunt of the attacks. It's part of our role in securing the world's air and sea lanes so all nations may prosper. We understand the nature of being a leader, it's to take on the responsibility and to ensure the world doesn't descend into world war once again. We saw that modernized warfare evolving from WWI and WWII is entirely too destructive and we will NOT allow it to happen again, even if it means sacrificing our own on a regular basis. I say we will NOT, because we CAN, we have the most powerful military and economy on the planet, so we get to make the rules to ensure the planet's tranquility. You want to be in charge? You want a voice in the rules? Take responsibility. Go out there and ensure the air and sea lanes are open to commerce. Get off your duff and go out there into the world and put yourself at risk. I did for 21 years, 9 months and 17 days.Now, your list is incomplete and inaccurate. Denmark and other European nations have suffered terroristic incidents, France had several killings of Jews, Denmark had cartoonists in hiding from terroristic threats, etc, etc.Next, mass killings DO happen in other parts of the world, including Europe. Wake up, start applying the same definitions you use on the US to the rest of the world.Last, America does NOT live in constant fear. You have been watching too much television news. We go about our business every day, terror threat or not. We visit, travel, go out to dinner, see movies, ball games, etc and do NOT cower from any threat of terror.YOU may cower in your home, draw the blinds, and pray the evil doesn't come across your threshold, we believe in going out and killing it first, wherever it may be incubating. If that means using UAVs to take out terror leaders, even Americans who would plot against their own nation, then so be it. I'm not a fan of President Obama, but I watched his speech in it's entirety and I like much of what he had to say. We will not stand idly by and let anyone, ANYONE, plot our destruction without reaping the consequences. We WILL reach out and touch those who plot our demise with every tool at our disposal, as WE think it is right. It is our RIGHT, and we will execute (pun intended) that right at every opportunity.Yeah, my post may sound jingoistic, but until some other nation gets off their lazy asses and puts their lives and national treasure on the line, we get to make the decisions. That's why Britain is one of our staunchest allies, as a former world-spanning empire, they understand what's at stake. They know there is a cost associated with world-keeping, but the cost is worth it, if we can keep the specters of world war at bay, even if it means regional conflicts to take out the threats to the rest of the world. That's the reality of today's international politics, you don't like it? Get YOUR national spending on defense up to match the US's and start taking over that responsibility. Put your youth and national treasure at risk, THEN, come talk to me about what YOU want the world to look like. Put up or shut up.

Agreed. Admitting to four American deaths by drones (where only one was an actual target!) is the ultimate test of public will. If the pending cases fail, or Congress fails to enact limits on POTUS authority, then the precedent will be decided: Drone strikes on US citizens are legal.

More's typical that every country outside the US thinks their $hit don't stink and they have no issues.

The US has the guts to defend itself with no apologies as best it sees fit. If you're an American and decide to haul yourself off and fight along with terrorist then you need to be prepared to meet your maker from wherever, drone or otherwise. You gave up your rights and no one should be debating this.

quote: The US has the guts to defend itself with no apologies as best it sees fit.

Most people don't call that gutsy, but call that being a bully.

The problems is that the US has bin doing what it damn well liked, from the 50s till now, and most of the time what it did could not be called, doing the right thing.

Putting your interest first is not something thats real bad, but putting only your interest first all the time, by supporting dictators, and not whats in the interest of the local people will give you a bad name.

If you work your way up the ladder in a company by backstabbing everyone on your way up the ladder, you should not be surprised there will be a day of reckoning.

And i am not saying the US is the only one at fouled, we in Europe done it to, as i worked in Nigeria, and Shell ware i worked for was supporting one group in the government, and Elf (now Total) was supporting the other group, and the winner was corruption.

But there is one difference between the European counties and the US, were all small in comparison, and have to work to gather, and you see EU companies willing to compromise a bit more then US companies.

Not saying most Americans are bad people, i am saying lot of US big companies and government use a one sided judgment.

...and if you're a civilian who has the bad luck to live in rural Pakistan? What then? It sounds like you're applying the "We killed them, so they must have been a terrorist!" rule.

Plus, it's not self righteous foreign countries that have an issue with this. There are MANY US citizens who feel that the current methods in the "war" on terror are unacceptable. You may not have noticed, but the presidential speech was directed at home - not other countries.

These drones fire missiles that are accurate within 3 feet. The kill radius is actually very small. Usually the kill radius is within the size of a small house.

I have to ask, if a known terrorist leader is there then what are you doing there so close to him. Chances are you are with that organization.

Yes there are also terrorists here in our country. They like to hide in a secluded spot that's covered up so they can make weapons. We usually monitor them for months and trace their activities to make sure they are doing what we think they are doing. Once everything is confirmed, the military is called for support and/or action.

If you think the president can hide his actions, you're wrong. There's a lot of people involved to make sure nobody is committing crimes. It's also interagency and involves multiple branches of the military. It has to go through a long approval chain with everyone's signature on it. I'm sure I won't sign anything that even remotely gave me a chance of being tried for war crimes.

Here's a fact: The military in general dislike politicians regardless of republicans or democrats. Almost everyone vote republicans because of pay and funding support.

Here's an example. I used to work closely with a unit with its main function being UAV(drones). They receive their missions from various agencies and branches. The CO can actually decline the mission if he sees conflicting information. Why? because he has to take responsibility for every action so he won't sign off on it unless he is without a doubt confident in this action. It's not as if what the President wants, he gets.

I just think everyone has this huge conspiracy about everything. Granted, some(very few) conspiracies are actually true. But we don't need to be making stuff up because we don't know everything. If you want to know more, then get a clearance, work for the DoD/military and you can be briefed on many things. Once you see the truth and compare it to what the media present then you will see how people have so many conspiracies.

FYI, I stopped watching the news from 2005-2011 because the news did not report what was actually happening most of the time. I was there, I had lost many friends. To think people believe that crap was infuriating.

Missile accuracy only matters if you pick the right target - and people make mistakes. In this case, mistakes = destroying a school or hospital or hut full goat farmers instead of an enemy combatant inside of a sovereign foreign nation. And, yes, I understand that means that some procedure was probably not followed.

quote: If you think the president can hide his actions...

??? It's pretty clear we are occasionally blowing up innocent people (and American citizens) and giving their relatives cash payouts in order to kill some - admittedly - bad dudes that may or may not be a serious threat to the US. Cost does not equal benefit (in my opinion).

First of all, we don't blow up schools, churches/mosques or hospitals except if that facility is an immediate threat to us. I can personally verify this because I spent years in Iraq. It's one of the biggest frustration when they know our Geneva convention and rules of engagement. They purposely used it against us. Weapons caches are often found in schools, mosques and hospitals. They also hide in there and won't shoot at us so we can't mow it down with a 50 cal. They want us wait around so we can get ambushed.

They called them american citizens because they are. But they didn't get blown up by mistakes. These are muslims that got american citizenship working with al qaeda. Tourists don't just have meetings with terrorist leaders lol.

When innocent Americans are hurt by accident, you will see a public apology and very large compensation. You can count on that. If the government doesn't step up then the families will cry to the media anyways.

What part of foot on ground, eyes on target confirmation don't you understand? You obvious have never been in the military, DoD, CIA, FBI etc... We don't kill people on a hunch, even if it's obvious they did it. American citizens or not, we always need substantial evidence that they are an imminent danger to take them out. Hell, in Iraq, we practically had to wait until we are shot at before are allowed to take them out.

You also have not seen the actual video of Pres. Obama. This article is vastly biased, misleading and so are you.

It sounds like you're applying your experiences in Iraq (a country who we were officially at war with) to what's currently happening in places like Pakistan. I'd say there's some differences.

It doesn't sound like I disagree with you regarding what I feel should happen to American conspirators. The problem is that this is effectively extrajudicial killing of American's. It's illegal and sets a bad precedent. You've made it pretty clear that things like "legal vs. illegal" are not important to you, so I can understand why you wouldn't consider that.

You're incorrect about my military experience, and I never said anything about hunches - I said mistakes. Mistakes do happen. It's moronic that you're implying otherwise, and I do feel that the risk of those mistakes is not really acceptable in the places where we are currently making them.

quote: This article is vastly biased, misleading and so are you.

I feel like you're misleading and dependent on your own observations to the exclusion of other evidence. FYI: "I saw it happen this way in a completely different situation!" Doesn't really add anything to the conversation.

What do you suggest we should do about any american citizens that are terrorists?

Currently, an act of terrorism can be considered an act of war. Didn't you see that they could've tried the Boston marathon bombers through military or civil court? But let it go through civil court mainly because of the people wanting it. It was to let people know that the government still recognize everyone's rights.

My experience is very relevant in Iraq or at home. We are constantly catching these extremists trying to bomb our camps and bases. I'm talking about world wide, not just Iraq or Afghan. I was at Cherry Point and Camp Lejeune. We've caught them there too. You guys think these things only happen if you see it in the news. It's only in the news when it's too late. So think of all the attempts that are unsuccessful and be glad there's people watching your back while you keep your rights to rant about an overreaching government.

Well, I don't think we should be flying into Pakistan to do it, but I have no problem with dropping explosives on an American citizen that's aiding and abetting terrorists. The dubious legality of the specific situations is where I have a problem. Some kind of legal framework to handle this stuff while limiting the scope is needed, I think (obviously, easier said than done).

Didn't mean to imply that your experience is completely irrelevant (honestly, I can't say for sure either way) - more that there are going to be some major differences in how things should be handled between (for instance) Iraq during the war, Pakistan now, and the US - anytime. You seemed to be saying that things which were acceptable in Iraq while you were there would be acceptable anywhere, anytime. That's what I disagree with. Apologies if I misunderstood.

I understand your POV. What I am saying is these terrorists have no homeland, they have no nation and no country. They reside in Afghan or Pakistan right now. We don't just come in and bomb them. The Afghan and Pakistani government allowed us to. The UN would be in an outrage if we did not receive permission to bomb the people of another country.

We are taking the fight to them because our families are at home. Some of us will not hesitate to fight and risk death so our friends and families don't have to suffer. We are without a doubt the most hated country and probably targeted by more terrorists than any other. It's not the ocean that stops them, it's our proactive suppression of terrorism and hitting them where it hurts. We're hitting their network and infrastructure(training camps, weapons cache, cash storage, etc...) to disrupt their operations.

Have you ever been to America? Because no offense but your opinions and views of America represent the typical ignorance of my country and its people that is propagated by state run media in Europe and elsewhere. Islam and its culture cannot coexist with western culture and values without westerners becoming slaves to Allah. There is no such thing as basic human rights not derived from Allah in Islamic society. The war against terror is a war of containment and suppression that will go on until either Islam has a reformation or the west loses its will to fight.

quote: the typical ignorance of my country and its people that is propagated by state run media in Europe and elsewhere

The state run media, whatever little from it is left is non-partisan by law, or echoing the commercial news distributers, which are generally seeing terrorists around the corners as much as the US media does.

quote: Islam and its culture cannot coexist with western culture and values without westerners becoming slaves to Allah.

That sentence is usually used by those who want to destroy all competing ideologies and religions. The others just keep on living with other peoples as they always have been.

quote: There is no such thing as basic human rights not derived from Allah in Islamic society.

Islamic, Christian and Jewish societies can be secularist as many countries have demonstrated. It's just the exremist minorities who have never accepted this. Formulation of human rights have had many religious influences in the past. It's no wonder that people who seek new sense of identities in the globalizing, post-colonialist world want deny such foreign influences.

quote: the west loses its will to fight.

For an exremist, we being ourselves is fighting against them. We don't lose our will to be ourselves as long as we don't lose our self-respect. The strikes lessen our sense of self-respect.

quote: That sentence is usually used by those who want to destroy all competing ideologies and religions. The others just keep on living with other peoples as they always have been.

You are actually going to try to lay that on an American living in the original melting pot of people and ideas? Very hard to understand the American way when you live in a European Mono-culture.

quote: Islamic, Christian and Jewish societies can be secularist as many countries have demonstrated. It's just the extremist minorities who have never accepted this. Formulation of human rights have had many religious influences in the past. It's no wonder that people who seek new sense of identities in the globalizing, post-colonialist world want deny such foreign influences.

Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews have a myriad examples of successful secular governments. Islam has one shining example in a sea of Islamic republics that being Turkey which i feel if pushed would go full bore theocracy in a second.

They can deny such foreign influences they want; one requirement don't fly planes into our buildings ok? because you might not like the outcome.

quote: There is no such thing as basic human rights not derived from Allah in Islamic society.

Let me ask you then how Iranians will see use from there point of view.

We the west (Mainly the US and UK) have done everything we could to make them mistrust and hate us, and now we are complaining that they are untrustworthy towards us.

- First in 53 we robed them of there democratic elected president Mossadeq, by using terrorist tactics, the thing we accuse Iran of now.- Then supported for years the dictatorship of the Shah, ware under his ruling many people disappeared.- Then we (mainly the US) supported Saddam Hoessein (a man that used chemical weapons and invaded Iran) in the war between Iraq en Iran.- And then after they had noting to do with the 9/11 attacks, called them the "the axis of evil", yeah bin called the "the axis of evil" would make me wane be friendly with you.